• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo

The fairness doctrine is coming


  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#1 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 17 February 2009 - 07:58 AM


http://spectator.org...n-all-fairness/


Senior FCC staff working for acting Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps held meetings last week with policy and legislative advisers to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to discuss ways the committee can create openings for the FCC to put in place a form of the "Fairness Doctrine" without actually calling it such.


The House Energy and Commerce Committee is also looking at how it can put in place policies that would allow it greater oversight of the Internet. "Internet radio is becoming a big deal, and we're seeing that some web sites are able to control traffic and information, while other sites that may be of interest or use to citizens get limited traffic because of the way the people search and look for information," says on committee staffer. "We're at very early stages on this, but the chairman has made it clear that oversight of the Internet is one of his top priorities."

"This isn't just about Limbaugh or a local radio host most of us haven't heard about," says Democrat committee member. "The FCC and state and local governments also have oversight over the Internet lines and the cable and telecom companies that operate them. We want to get alternative views on radio and TV, but we also want to makes sure those alternative views are read, heard and seen online, which is becoming increasingly video and audio driven. Thanks to the stimulus package, we've established that broadband networks -- the Internet -- are critical, national infrastructure. We think that gives us an opening to look at what runs over that critical infrastructure."



#2 aim1

  • Guest
  • 102 posts
  • 8

Posted 17 February 2009 - 08:32 AM

http://spectator.org...n-all-fairness/


Senior FCC staff working for acting Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps held meetings last week with policy and legislative advisers to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to discuss ways the committee can create openings for the FCC to put in place a form of the "Fairness Doctrine" without actually calling it such.


The House Energy and Commerce Committee is also looking at how it can put in place policies that would allow it greater oversight of the Internet. "Internet radio is becoming a big deal, and we're seeing that some web sites are able to control traffic and information, while other sites that may be of interest or use to citizens get limited traffic because of the way the people search and look for information," says on committee staffer. "We're at very early stages on this, but the chairman has made it clear that oversight of the Internet is one of his top priorities."

"This isn't just about Limbaugh or a local radio host most of us haven't heard about," says Democrat committee member. "The FCC and state and local governments also have oversight over the Internet lines and the cable and telecom companies that operate them. We want to get alternative views on radio and TV, but we also want to makes sure those alternative views are read, heard and seen online, which is becoming increasingly video and audio driven. Thanks to the stimulus package, we've established that broadband networks -- the Internet -- are critical, national infrastructure. We think that gives us an opening to look at what runs over that critical infrastructure."






The New and Improved communism, brought to you by your friends in the democrat party. The control freaks in the radical left are stomping all over the constitution, and the opposition is powerless. Comrade waxman is out for blood. Need more ammo. And yes, Laz, I do want to fight.
Countdown to niner begins now...

#3 rwac

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 17 February 2009 - 06:35 PM

Here's the standard pro vs con argument on the fairness doctrine.
Megyn Kelly vs Bill Press

http://www.mofopolit...rness-doctrine/

Edited by rwac, 17 February 2009 - 06:47 PM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,076 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 17 February 2009 - 06:43 PM

It is getting scary out there. Now the dems want to control content on the internet too?!

#5 forever freedom

  • Guest
  • 2,362 posts
  • 67

Posted 17 February 2009 - 10:08 PM

It is getting scary out there. Now the dems want to control content on the internet too?!


I second that, scary is exactly the way i'd put it. It's ironic when they talk about fair, if they really knew what "fair" meant they'd stop trying to control everything. That's fair.

#6 Futurist1000

  • Guest
  • 438 posts
  • 1
  • Location:U.S.A.

Posted 17 February 2009 - 11:00 PM

This sounds awful. Who determines what is fair? There are so many sources for information online too. What exactly do they mean? Are they going to regulate certain websites because they have a lot of traffic? Or will they regulate every website?

Maybe it won't be all bad. Maybe this means we could force the huffington post (the top rated blog according to technorati), to give libertarian viewpoints in equal measure.

Edited by ImmortalFuture, 17 February 2009 - 11:02 PM.


#7 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 17 February 2009 - 11:09 PM

New York is trying to tax all digital entertainment downloaded on the internet as well.

#8 Ghostrider

  • Guest
  • 1,996 posts
  • 56
  • Location:USA

Posted 17 February 2009 - 11:46 PM

It is getting scary out there. Now the dems want to control content on the internet too?!


But the Dems got control because the Repubs f***ed up. So this is really the Repubs fault for choosing the wrong and misinformed priorities. And I say this having voted Republican in 2004...it was a mistake.

I am not too worried about this though, why not just encrypt everything? Government would not be able to monitor encrypted content.

#9 rwac

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 18 February 2009 - 02:13 AM

It is getting scary out there. Now the dems want to control content on the internet too?!


But the Dems got control because the Repubs f***ed up. So this is really the Repubs fault for choosing the wrong and misinformed priorities. And I say this having voted Republican in 2004...it was a mistake.

I am not too worried about this though, why not just encrypt everything? Government would not be able to monitor encrypted content.


Yes, The dems won because the repubs messed it up.
However, I don't believe that most of the people who voted for Obama knew this would be coming.
So we should put the blame where it lies: The Democrats.

How would you encrypt a forum, and how well would it hold up legally ?
Are we talking Tor or Freenet here ?

#10 Snapple

  • Guest
  • 19 posts
  • -0

Posted 18 February 2009 - 03:22 AM

[/quote]


The New and Improved communism, brought to you by your friends in the democrat party. The control freaks in the radical left are stomping all over the constitution, and the opposition is powerless. Comrade waxman is out for blood. Need more ammo. And yes, Laz, I do want to fight.
Countdown to niner begins now...
[/quote]


There's not many things more ironic than a right winger complaining about "stomping all over the constitution."

Your side basically used the constitution as toilet paper for the past 8 years and suddenly you're a Bill of Rights purist or something?

I don't follow this whole "fairness doctrine" phony issue that the right wing is trying to divert us with, but I do know your side is absolutely, 100% full of shit when it comes to protecting the constitution.

#11 rwac

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 18 February 2009 - 03:45 AM

I don't follow this whole "fairness doctrine" phony issue that the right wing is trying to divert us with, but I do know your side is absolutely, 100% full of shit when it comes to protecting the constitution.


Why is the fairness doctrine a phony issue ?

Why do you think the Republicans "stomping all over the constitution" excuses the Democrats ?

Just how did Republicans stomp on the constitution anyway, in your opinion ?

Edited by rwac, 18 February 2009 - 03:55 AM.


#12 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 18 February 2009 - 04:24 AM

We want to get alternative views on radio and TV, but we also want to makes sure those alternative views are read, heard and seen online, which is becoming increasingly video and audio driven.

Uh, excuse me, but this doesn't sound like censorship, it sounds like anti-censorship. It may not meet a Free Market Purity Test, but what exactly is so scary here? This sounds like typical fear mongering. If functions previously performed by the broadcast and print media migrate to the internet, is it really surprising or scary that the regulation associated with those functions would also migrate? I don't think that ImmInst needs to worry about anything here; we aren't going to need to encrypt the forums.

#13 rwac

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 18 February 2009 - 06:06 AM

We want to get alternative views on radio and TV, but we also want to makes sure those alternative views are read, heard and seen online, which is becoming increasingly video and audio driven.

Uh, excuse me, but this doesn't sound like censorship, it sounds like anti-censorship. It may not meet a Free Market Purity Test, but what exactly is so scary here? This sounds like typical fear mongering. If functions previously performed by the broadcast and print media migrate to the internet, is it really surprising or scary that the regulation associated with those functions would also migrate? I don't think that ImmInst needs to worry about anything here; we aren't going to need to encrypt the forums.


The point is that, the democrats are trying to attack talk radio by stealth.
They're trying to push liberal talk radio, which doesn't have much of a market, and doesn't make much money for the radio stations.
Where it has a market, there are already such radio shows.

What if tomorrow, the government (Left or Right) decided that Immortality was a one sided discussion.
And we should also include the other viewpoint, that is people have a natural lifespan, and a duty to die at the end of that lifespan.
How do you think that would affect ImmInst ? Do you think ImmInst is prepared to defend itself in the lawsuits that would inevitably happen ? Or do you think ImmInst would just close ?

#14 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 18 February 2009 - 06:19 AM

We want to get alternative views on radio and TV, but we also want to makes sure those alternative views are read, heard and seen online, which is becoming increasingly video and audio driven.

Uh, excuse me, but this doesn't sound like censorship, it sounds like anti-censorship. It may not meet a Free Market Purity Test, but what exactly is so scary here? This sounds like typical fear mongering. If functions previously performed by the broadcast and print media migrate to the internet, is it really surprising or scary that the regulation associated with those functions would also migrate? I don't think that ImmInst needs to worry about anything here; we aren't going to need to encrypt the forums.

The point is that, the democrats are trying to attack talk radio by stealth.
They're trying to push liberal talk radio, which doesn't have much of a market, and doesn't make much money for the radio stations.
Where it has a market, there are already such radio shows.

What if tomorrow, the government (Left or Right) decided that Immortality was a one sided discussion.
And we should also include the other viewpoint, that is people have a natural lifespan, and a duty to die at the end of that lifespan.
How do you think that would affect ImmInst ? Do you think ImmInst is prepared to defend itself in the lawsuits that would inevitably happen ? Or do you think ImmInst would just close ?

I don't think it applies, because ImmInst is a minority viewpoint. Very minority, at this point. The fairness doctrine is about including minority viewpoints in mass media, not excluding them. It traditionally applies to the public airwaves. How it would work on the internet is an open question. Who owns the backbone? Is the net a public space? I think it may be.

For what it's worth, talk radio has done little for this country but sow hatred and division, and propagate lies and misinformation. It has harmed America greatly. You might want to pick a better example, if there is one.

#15 rwac

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 18 February 2009 - 07:17 AM

I don't think it applies, because ImmInst is a minority viewpoint. Very minority, at this point. The fairness doctrine is about including minority viewpoints in mass media, not excluding them. It traditionally applies to the public airwaves. How it would work on the internet is an open question. Who owns the backbone? Is the net a public space? I think it may be.


Well, if the net is a public space, then what's the discussion about "oversight" of the Internet ?

That's just your vision of how things would/should work. What makes you think the government
(Possibly leftwing, because Immortality doesnt mesh with universal healthcare. Possibly rightwing, because it doesn't fit well with some religious ideas) would hesitate to use whatever tool is available to crush dissenting viewpoints ?

The only acceptable approach here is to not go down this path.

For what it's worth, talk radio has done little for this country but sow hatred and division, and propagate lies and misinformation. It has harmed America greatly. You might want to pick a better example, if there is one.


Voltaire famously argued, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Talk radio did not generate the viewpoints it discusses. There has always been a segment of people who have not been served by mainstream TV/radio at all.
That's the reason why talk radio is popular, and it thrives.
Talk radio merely serves these people, and if these viewpoints result in division, so be it.

It also brings people together around these viewpoints, to reverse the "liberal media" spin.
Why is this a bad thing ?
I would say the right has as much reason to be angry as the left, if not more.

Some examples for the accusations you make about the lies and misinformation would be nice.

#16 aim1

  • Guest
  • 102 posts
  • 8

Posted 18 February 2009 - 08:00 AM

There's not many things more ironic than a right winger complaining about "stomping all over the constitution."

Your side basically used the constitution as toilet paper for the past 8 years and suddenly you're a Bill of Rights purist or something?

I don't follow this whole "fairness doctrine" phony issue that the right wing is trying to divert us with, but I do know your side is absolutely, 100% full of shit when it comes to protecting the constitution.
[/quote]



Speaking of full of shit, please supply examples of the evil right wing using the Constitution for toilet paper.
And, it's not a diversion, or a phony issue. It's a fact. The democrats want to regulate speech, and the internet.
And New York IS trying to charge for downloads
Having a hard time with the deomcrats being facist?

Edited by aim1, 18 February 2009 - 08:07 AM.


#17 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 18 February 2009 - 11:19 AM

What makes you think the government would hesitate to use whatever tool is available to crush dissenting viewpoints ?


He probably believes that the government is by nature good.

#18 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 18 February 2009 - 01:53 PM

For what it's worth, talk radio has done little for this country but sow hatred and division, and propagate lies and misinformation. It has harmed America greatly. You might want to pick a better example, if there is one.

If by "America" you mean the radical left communist ideology, or the terroristic islamic extremist ideology, then yes, talk radio has done great harm.

As Neal Boortz says, "Absolutely anything I say that is in any way opposing any of Barack Obama's positions is automatically, by definition, hate speech"

You are so busy assassinating, condemning, and trying to control and eliminate their free speech just because you disagree with their points.

Truly progressive, isn't it?

As Michael Savage has said: what happened to the days when a liberal could tell you "I completely disagree with what you say, but I would die for your right to say it".

The days of the true American liberal is all but gone. They have been replaced with fascists.

Edited by advancdaltruist, 18 February 2009 - 02:09 PM.


#19 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 18 February 2009 - 03:18 PM

The very idea of the "fairness" doctrine is completely ridiculous, and applying it to the internet is absurd in the extreme. It is not anti censorship any way you try to paint it. I say this despite the fact that I think talk radio is mostly populated by loud morons

#20 Healthy Skeptic

  • Guest
  • 23 posts
  • 0

Posted 19 February 2009 - 01:21 AM

Obama has now issued a statement saying he opposes any revival of the fairness doctrine. Additionally, Waxman and the FCC both deny they ever said the fairness doctrine should be applied to the internet.
http://www.foxnews.c...rness-doctrine/

#21 forever freedom

  • Guest
  • 2,362 posts
  • 67

Posted 19 February 2009 - 01:50 AM

Obama has now issued a statement saying he opposes any revival of the fairness doctrine. Additionally, Waxman and the FCC both deny they ever said the fairness doctrine should be applied to the internet.
http://www.foxnews.c...rness-doctrine/



Good. I'm surprised that niner was not against this, but it was probably just an emotional reaction that puts in a pedestal everything the egalitarian democrat saints do.

Edited by forever freedom, 19 February 2009 - 01:50 AM.


#22 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 19 February 2009 - 03:53 AM

Obama has now issued a statement saying he opposes any revival of the fairness doctrine. Additionally, Waxman and the FCC both deny they ever said the fairness doctrine should be applied to the internet.
http://www.foxnews.c...rness-doctrine/

Good. I'm surprised that niner was not against this, but it was probably just an emotional reaction that puts in a pedestal everything the egalitarian democrat saints do.

No, this just shows you that the whole thing was put together by somebody who wanted to get you guys all wound up. Worked pretty well, too. I didn't know you thought that all democrats were saints, you being a Rand worshiper and all. I don't think they're saints, I just think they have mostly better policies than Republicans, with some exceptions.

#23 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 19 February 2009 - 04:40 AM

On Talk Radio and Freedom of Speech:

I don't want to spend all night replying to each of you individually, so I'll just say a few things here. I'm not opposed to free speech. However, you are all familiar I'm sure with the classic example of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. You may or may not be aware of the role radio played in the Rwandan genocide. There is a point where certain kinds of speech become so dangerous to society that we regulate them. We have laws against inciting a riot, for example.

I think that talk radio has for some while been a danger to our society. It propagates lies. Read this article for examples. It demonizes half the country as "the enemy", with a "Democrats = Leftists = Liberals = Dirty Hippies = Marxists" blur that many have picked up. A democracy can function just fine with differences of opinion, but it can't function when the two parties have their own version of facts. The Right has set up its own version of the facts, and by demonizing academia and journalism as "Liberal", they shoot down the very institutions that we use to separate truth from falsehood. This creates a perfect situation for one who doesn't want his version of the facts to be challenged; you simply dismiss the challengers as wrong "by definition".

Our country functioned happily for decades with the Fairness Doctrine in place. I'm not sure that everyone knows that. I can understand that people don't like the idea of "some bureaucrat" from "the government" telling a broadcast outlet what they can and can't say about an issue of public importance. To be honest, I'm not that crazy about it myself. The problem is, when there is widespread dissemination of hate and lies that is harming my country, I'd like to see something done about it.

#24 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 19 February 2009 - 06:01 AM

Niner, nobody is intentionally spreading lies and misinformation, as if they are trying to trick people into believing something that they know to be false. If you believe their facts are mistaken, call them out on it and let people make up their minds freely. What are you going to do, attack people who say things you disagree with? Are you crazy??

I'm not opposed to free speech. However, you are all familiar I'm sure with the classic example of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. You may or may not be aware of the role radio played in the Rwandan genocide. There is a point where certain kinds of speech become so dangerous to society that we regulate them. We have laws against inciting a riot, for example.


I think that talk radio has for some while been a danger to our society. It propagates lies. Read this article for examples.


The Right has set up its own version of the facts, and by demonizing academia and journalism as "Liberal", they shoot down the very institutions that we use to separate truth from falsehood. This creates a perfect situation for one who doesn't want his version of the facts to be challenged; you simply dismiss the challengers as wrong "by definition".


You are like Chuck Schumer, who compared political speech he disagreed with to pornography. You want to talk about yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theater, as if they intentionally created a certain view point they believed to be false in order to cause chaos?

It's like you believe talk radio listeners are all a mob of mindless morons who follow these evil, manipulative hosts like religious zealots, with no thought or reason at all. It's so liberal of you to think conservatives think that way. The reality is that these hosts read the news and do research to identify and dessiminate their findings, along with their personal beliefs, opinions, and interpretations. Most listeners do the same, using these talk shows as a resource. And if you want to see a mob of mindless morons, look at the masses of Democrat voters looking to the government with their hands out.

How about the hysteria of global warming, and the insane economically crippling anti-capitalist movement this has caused? Or Obama saying the word "crisis" something like 30 times in his most recent speech about the economy- we have laws against speaking of banks going under and thus causing a run on a bank- the same principle applies, so maybe Obama needs to be regulated, too? This goes both ways.

It demonizes half the country as "the enemy", with a "Democrats = Leftists = Liberals = Dirty Hippies = Marxists" blur that many have picked up.

And some on the left haven't demonized the right just the same? And what's with the word demonize? Most talk show hosts simply state the facts. One tiny example: Obama had communist friends in college. Now I am demonizing him? We are just pointing out some facts. You are the one talking about demons- maybe you should take your own hint!

I can understand that people don't like the idea of "some bureaucrat" from "the government" telling a broadcast outlet what they can and can't say about an issue of public importance. To be honest, I'm not that crazy about it myself.

Yeah, neither were the founders of the United States.

Actually, so much so that they made this the very first Amendment to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights.

Notice that nowhere in the Bill of Rights did they mention the right to a job, a house, or healthcare.

Edited by advancdaltruist, 19 February 2009 - 06:13 AM.


#25 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 19 February 2009 - 06:12 AM

Niner, nobody is intentionally spreading lies and misinformation, as if they are trying to trick people into believing something that they know to be false. If you believe their facts are mistaken, call them out on it and let people make up their minds freely. What are you going to do, attack people who say things you disagree with? Are you crazy??

You didn't read the link regarding Limbaugh's lies, did you?

#26 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 19 February 2009 - 06:27 AM

Niner, nobody is intentionally spreading lies and misinformation, as if they are trying to trick people into believing something that they know to be false. If you believe their facts are mistaken, call them out on it and let people make up their minds freely. What are you going to do, attack people who say things you disagree with? Are you crazy??

You didn't read the link regarding Limbaugh's lies, did you?

Yeah, so this guy is a moron so wrapped up in ideology that he is blind to the facts (this isn't true of many on the left as well??). That doesn't mean people like that are intentionally misleading others.

I don't listen to him. Apparently he is entertaining though, because a lot of people do. Maybe the people who listen to this guy don't care about the truth, they just want to have some fun. People will make up stupid beliefs and stick to them regardless of whether this entertainer capitalizes on it. I still have people to this day who don't listen to any talk radio who will consistently argue that Obama is a muslim. They have a very good and insightful point, although technically their explicit statement fails to be true, strictly speaking.

Trying to control and eliminate free speech will achieve nothing good.

All of my above statement stands.

Edited by advancdaltruist, 19 February 2009 - 06:28 AM.


#27 forever freedom

  • Guest
  • 2,362 posts
  • 67

Posted 19 February 2009 - 06:53 AM

Obama has now issued a statement saying he opposes any revival of the fairness doctrine. Additionally, Waxman and the FCC both deny they ever said the fairness doctrine should be applied to the internet.
http://www.foxnews.c...rness-doctrine/

Good. I'm surprised that niner was not against this, but it was probably just an emotional reaction that puts in a pedestal everything the egalitarian democrat saints do.

No, this just shows you that the whole thing was put together by somebody who wanted to get you guys all wound up. Worked pretty well, too. I didn't know you thought that all democrats were saints, you being a Rand worshiper and all. I don't think they're saints, I just think they have mostly better policies than Republicans, with some exceptions.


Oh but i think they are. I mean wouldn't it be great if they finally won complete power and were finally allowed to regulate everything that needed it? Without regulation everything goes mayhem anyway doesn't it. I wish they could tell us all how to lead our lives and what to do and what not to do, i'm sure they know better how to lead my life than i do. I'd move to the US asap then.

As for being a Rand worshipper, i'll take it as a compliment if you don't mind.

Edited by forever freedom, 19 February 2009 - 06:58 AM.


#28 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 19 February 2009 - 09:16 PM

The problem is, when there is widespread dissemination of hate and lies that is harming my country, I'd like to see something done about it.


ok, you have a philosophical difference that does not believe in free speech as commonly defined, whereas mine (and I suspect others here) is more in line with Christopher Hitchens. The problem with the way you've made your points is that you do not highlight making it a debate between very different philosophical viewpoints, but instead you seek to redefine terms like "free speech" "censorship" ect. to match your philosophical viewpoint of how they should be. I'm not aware if you do this consciously or not, and it may be that in the circles you find yourself in readily use definitional forms that are not usual.

Language is a dynamic phenomena, and definitions do change. However such changes do not change the underlying philosophical context.

For example, suppose the religious right was successful in changing the definition of "murder" to include the termination of unwanted early term pregnancies. What would this ultimately do? Nothing. That would simply mean for those of us that don't count ourselves in their anti abortion group that there would be some forms of "murder" that are neither morally nor ethically wrong.

#29 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 19 February 2009 - 10:14 PM

You may or may not be aware of the role radio played in the Rwandan genocide.


A strange argument. What about the role the ability to speak played in the Rwandan genocide? Surely there wouldn't have been propaganda if people couldn't have spoken a word. If you're going to get rid of the radio to suppress hate speech, why not strike the root and get rid of the vocal tract?

#30 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 20 February 2009 - 03:38 AM

The problem with the way you've made your points is that you do not highlight making it a debate between very different philosophical viewpoints, but instead you seek to redefine terms like "free speech" "censorship" ect. to match your philosophical viewpoint of how they should be.

Extremely insightful. Thank you for bringing this up so eloquently. This is so often the primary tactic of special interest groups and other "politically correct" mobs on the left.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users